I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays" standards.
Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of "Groupies". When
faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they felt some
sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans. It was a long time
ago!

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of
"Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do
(by his peer group and by the groupies). as far as the BBC is
concerned, I expect they felt some sort of duty to allow stars some
access to their fans. It was a long time ago!

So the patients in hospitals etc he assaulted were all 'groupies'?

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/10/2012 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays" standards.
Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of "Groupies". When
faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they felt some
sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans. It was a long time
ago!


Sure, if they look like Megan Stammers, I might have some sympathy, but
prepubescent girls in wheelchairs? Sir Jimmy should have been smothered
at birth

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:03:47 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:

On 11/10/12 10:41, Brian Gaff wrote:

Don't you find it very odd though that all these people are coming out of

the woodwork now that he has gone? Where will be the justice without

him to

stick up for himself.

I find it all a bit strange unless there is some money to be had.

sorry to

sound so cynical, but to me, no matter how well respected he was these

accusations should have been brought forward during his life in my view.





Yes, very strange.

On the one hand, slightly creepy wierdo so not surprised, on the other

it seems strange that nothing ever came to light while he was alive.



It did. Time and again. BUT who want to go up a against a national hero

with a knighthood and a personal fortune enough to hire lawyers?

And a good friend of maggie thatcher I've heard.



He's not the only perve with a knightood by a ling chalk, either.



Best way to attain respectability after a dodgy career/life is to spend

money on charities. And whatever party is in power.

Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then God will protect you.
I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed this to happen to innocent children.




Best way to find vulnerable children is to support a charity that looks

after vulnerable children.

gets you specail, access and even a flat in teh hopsptal or home.

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:09:52 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

whisky-dave wrote:



Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then God will

protect you.

I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed this to

happen to innocent children.



Because he doesn't interfere;

what do you mean he doesn't interfere, who the hell, brought the flood, 40 days and nights of rain. Not forgettting how he also parted the Red see to allow Moses to cross, yeah sure he doesn;t interfere ....



you are accountable for your actions. Of

course some religions say "It's God's will" but this is nonsense.

God also created man in his own image so what does that tell us about God,
that his a paedo ?. that his is an undulter, soemonen got mary pregnent.

Personally I blame brwian.

On Friday, October 12, 2012 1:43:29 PM UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then God will protect you. I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed this to happen to innocent children.

But the abuse by preists is the fault of secularism apparently, by some strange reversal of logic.

Robert

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:53:50 PM UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
Yes why all of a sudden has all this come up?. Anyone could be forgiven
for thinking that he's the worlds worst offender .. It seems that anyone and everyone has been accosted or abused by him but
if this was so widespread then why hasn't it surfaced before?.
So why not any allegations whilst he was alive then?..
It may well be understandable that people were scared to complain years
ago but he's been deceased for some time now so why no allegations then
why just all at once?..

So, are you saying that you (a) you don't quite believe it and (b) think it's not that serious even if it's true?

Robert

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:09:52 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

Because he doesn't interfere;

what do you mean he doesn't interfere, who the hell, brought the
flood, 40 days and nights of rain. Not forgettting how he also parted
the Red see to allow Moses to cross, yeah sure he doesn;t interfere ....

If you want to believe these Old Testament stories literally, go right
ahead.

Right so the OT is tosh, the whole bible is tosh, God didn't interfere
massively by making the earth and dosen't interfere now so praying is a
waste of time.........

I'd say that sort of 'null' god is pretty much atheism


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:03:39 PM UTC+1, mike wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:41*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:

Don't you find it very odd though that all these people are coming out of

the woodwork now that he has gone? Where will be the justice without him to

stick up for himself.

*I find it all a bit strange unless there is some money to be had. sorry to

sound so cynical, but to me, no matter how well respected he was these

accusations should have been brought forward during his life in my view..



After all what can be done now?





There's talk now of him having accomplices so presumably something

could be done on that front.



Well they could do what they did to Cromwell. Dig him up and hang him.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then God will protect you.
I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed this
to happen to innocent children.

Because he doesn't interfere;

s/interfere/exist/

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:29:02 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

whisky-dave wrote:



On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:09:52 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,



Because he doesn't interfere;



what do you mean he doesn't interfere, who the hell, brought the flood, 40

days and nights of rain. Not forgettting how he also parted the Red see to

allow Moses to cross, yeah sure he doesn;t interfere ....



If you want to believe these Old Testament stories literally, go right

ahead.

I don;t but those that believe in God seem to and they use the Bible as evidence of the truth, so why not use that evidence too, if that is the truth.

I wound up soem JVs once asking me why I was ther, well if you hadn't rung my doorbell I wouldn't be here would I. So did God ring my doorbell ?







--

Tim



"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays" standards.
Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of "Groupies". When
faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they felt some
sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans. It was a long time
ago!


Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years ago is
understandable. But it seems there were whispers about him even then.
Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence. But in the years that
followed there must have been people aware of rumours who had by then
been promoted to positions where they could have advised against
employing him etc. Were none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive
enough to be aware that times were changing, that what might have been
tolerated ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a
throwback, a liability at the very least.
--
djc

On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:37:45 PM UTC+1, djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:

I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays" standards.

Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of "Groupies". When

faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do (by his peer group and

by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they felt some

sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans. It was a long time

ago!





Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years ago is

understandable. But it seems there were whispers about him even then.

Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence. But in the years that

followed there must have been people aware of rumours who had by then

been promoted to positions where they could have advised against

employing him etc.


So you don;t 'employ' someone that gives to charity and can bring in lots of money to your charity.



Were none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive

enough to be aware that times were changing, that what might have been

tolerated ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a

throwback, a liability at the very least.

he had money and very good laywers they didn;t stand a chance.
Why didn;t those in childrens home sreprot him ?



--

djc

djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays" standards.
Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following of "Groupies". When
faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected to do (by his peer group
and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they felt some
sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans. It was a long time
ago!


Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years ago is
understandable. But it seems there were whispers about him even then.
Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence. But in the years that
followed there must have been people aware of rumours who had by then
been promoted to positions where they could have advised against
employing him etc. Were none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive
enough to be aware that times were changing, that what might have been
tolerated ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a
throwback, a liability at the very least.

I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties when a
bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand type
stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the limit of
what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic and did a lot for
charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to be there. Now it
transpires a lot DID have to be there and were very unwilling, well it
sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she wasn't
anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without losing her
job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the false bonhomie and
superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was into heavy rock and blues,
and that was miles away from Donny Osmond and the Bay City Rollers.

Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found it
tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you the sack.
Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider more helpless
and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop scene around, and
made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply because he could get away
with it. Everybody knew he was doing loads of skirt, but not many people
knew that it was underage and unwilling skirt.

This was after all the 60's/70s and everyone was rutting like bunnies. I
certainly was. The Pill, and penicillin made it a relatively harmless
way to pass the time. No AIDS.

And since no one actually complained because the culture then was 'if
you went into a blokes dressing room alone, what on earth else did you
expect?' the powers that be didn't have a reason to notice.

I think the only startling thing for me, and I was there, more or less -
at the time, is that he was fiddling with the bedridden and disabled.
And with people who really actually had said 'no'.

Not that he was shagging everything he could, and some of it was a bit
younger than the law allowed. If you were in the music business it was
quite hard not to, sometimes.

I am not trying to justify it, but answering the question of what the
Beeb never looked into it, it was probably represented as 'what the pop
scene is all about' and 'he's a good bloke that makes the ratings and
does charity work and doesn't upset Mary Whitehouse'.

I cannot stress how different things were in the 50's and 60's. No
mother relied on the law to protect her children. You were told not to
take sweets from strangers, not to go anywhere alone with strangers, and
I remember my mother being deeply sceptical of the cub camp I went to
'the vicar hasn't got any children of his own, even though *he is
married*' (he was the cub master). Took 10 years before I realised she
was musing over whether we had a gay paedophile vicar or not.. She
EXPECTED that he probably WAS and formulated her response accordingly.

It wasn't the men who were saying 'well dressed like that, what else did
she expect would happen' - it was the WOMEN, in their precise suburban
frumpy cotton print dresses who would say that of the girl dressed to
the nines who got raped.

So leaving aside the hospital stuff, the reaction of my parents
generation would have been 'what mother is going to let her daughter get
right up close and personal with Jimmy Saville no mater how famous he
is'. In short the fault would be seen to lie as much with the parent as
Jimmy Saville. All men were after all expected to be ramming their cocks
up anything with tits (and a few without), that's what men *did*. And
part of bringing up a gel was to make sure she knew that, and how not to
have it happen to her when she didn't want it to. And how to 'take
precautions' when she did.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
RobertL scribeth thus
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:53:50 PM UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
Yes why all of a sudden has all this come up?. Anyone could be forgiven
for thinking that he's the worlds worst offender .. It seems that anyone and
everyone has been accosted or abused by him but
if this was so widespread then why hasn't it surfaced before?.
So why not any allegations whilst he was alive then?..
It may well be understandable that people were scared to complain years
ago but he's been deceased for some time now so why no allegations then
why just all at once?..

So, are you saying that you (a) you don't quite believe it and (b) think it's
not that serious even if it's true?

Robert


Course not!.

I'm just surprised that this has all suddenly come about into the public
domain.

It seems perhaps that there ought to be an enquiry into it all then the
findings published.

Then we'll prolly get nearer the truth..
--
Tony Sayer

whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:03:47 PM UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:

On 11/10/12 10:41, Brian Gaff wrote:

Don't you find it very odd though that all these people are
coming out of

the woodwork now that he has gone? Where will be the justice
without

him to

stick up for himself.

I find it all a bit strange unless there is some money to be
had.

sorry to

sound so cynical, but to me, no matter how well respected he
was these

accusations should have been brought forward during his life in
my view.





Yes, very strange.

On the one hand, slightly creepy wierdo so not surprised, on the
other

it seems strange that nothing ever came to light while he was
alive.



It did. Time and again. BUT who want to go up a against a national
hero

with a knighthood and a personal fortune enough to hire lawyers?

And a good friend of maggie thatcher I've heard.



He's not the only perve with a knightood by a ling chalk, either.



Best way to attain respectability after a dodgy career/life is to
spend

money on charities. And whatever party is in power.

Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then
God will protect you.
I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed
this to happen to innocent children.

I find it odd that a Catholic priest will spend all week preaching that gays
are sinners before bumming a choirboy.

--
Adam

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:15:50 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:03:47 PM UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:

On 11/10/12 10:41, Brian Gaff wrote:

Don't you find it very odd though that all these people are
coming out of

the woodwork now that he has gone? Where will be the justice
without

him to

stick up for himself.

I find it all a bit strange unless there is some money to be
had.

sorry to

sound so cynical, but to me, no matter how well respected he
was these

accusations should have been brought forward during his life in
my view.





Yes, very strange.

On the one hand, slightly creepy wierdo so not surprised, on the
other

it seems strange that nothing ever came to light while he was
alive.



It did. Time and again. BUT who want to go up a against a national
hero

with a knighthood and a personal fortune enough to hire lawyers?

And a good friend of maggie thatcher I've heard.



He's not the only perve with a knightood by a ling chalk, either.



Best way to attain respectability after a dodgy career/life is to
spend

money on charities. And whatever party is in power.

Another good way is to become a priest (catholic usually) and then
God will protect you.
I'd really like to ask those that preach religion why God allowed
this to happen to innocent children.

I find it odd that a Catholic priest will spend all week preaching that gays
are sinners before bumming a choirboy.

They have to get them to reach the high notes someway or other.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand type
stuff. Or being 'gay'.

You've surpassed your self in stupidly. He sexually assaulted children
against their wishes - even if you believe a child can give assent to such
things.
Gay men have consensual sex with other adult gay men. Those who pray on
children are pederasts - nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ARW wrote:


I find it odd that a Catholic priest will spend all week preaching that gays
are sinners before bumming a choirboy.

The great thing about Catholicism is that all is forgiven. You can sin
all you like as long as you confess.

Two nuns are walking through the forbidden wood (the short cut) to
market when they are leapt upon by two monks and raped.

"What are we to do Sister Mary? "
"Well we will have to go back to the mother superior and confess to
having been raped twice"
"Twice???"
"Sure and we wouldn't be going back, except this way, would we now?"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following
of "Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected
to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they
felt some sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans.
It was a long time ago!


Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years ago is
understandable. But it seems there were whispers about him even
then. Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence. But in the
years that followed there must have been people aware of rumours
who had by then been promoted to positions where they could have
advised against employing him etc. Were none of them in the 80s,
the 90s perceptive enough to be aware that times were changing,
that what might have been tolerated ten or twenty years past was no
longer, that he was a bit of a throwback, a liability at the very
least.

I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties
when a bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the limit
of what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic and did a
lot for charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to be there. Now
it transpires a lot DID have to be there and were very unwilling,
well it sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she
wasn't anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without
losing her job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the false
bonhomie and superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was into heavy
rock and blues, and that was miles away from Donny Osmond and the Bay
City Rollers.
Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found it
tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you the sack.
Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider more helpless
and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop scene around, and
made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply because he could get away
with it. Everybody knew he was doing loads of skirt, but not many
people knew that it was underage and unwilling skirt.


You mean kids and rape?



--
Adam

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand type
stuff. Or being 'gay'.

You've surpassed your self in stupidly. He sexually assaulted children
against their wishes - even if you believe a child can give assent to such
things.

I made that exact pint, thats was the one bit we DIDN'T know.and te ONLY
thing that is surprising.


Gay men have consensual sex with other adult gay men. Those who pray on
children are pederasts - nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.


You have totally missed the point. I was merely using that as an example
of something that would have been utterly taboo to be overt about in
the 60's (it was as illegal - probably more illegal - than screwing
jailbait is today) and is now totally acceptable. Turing nearly went to
jail for being tossed off by another bloke.


ALL I am saying if you can drop your prejudices and see it, is that what
is acceptable today is not what was acceptable in the 60's. We are
totally tolerant of 'perversions' except those involving underage
children despite the fact that the age of consent goes as low as 13 in
some cultures.

So as I say, in the permissive 60's Jimmy wasn't doing anything wrong
EXCEPT to unwilling juveniles who had no chance to refuse.

And that was NOT a matter of wide knowledge - no way. As I said we all
knew he was a randy perve, but so were many people then. You would be
surprised how many bastions of the establishment were visiting miss
whiplash et al,. or getting access to distinctly younger than legal
crumpet. Or boys.

The odd thing is, that in a way people were less surprised then, than
they are now.

I think life was a bit more realistic and earthy then, without so many
sheltered suburban illusions.

You make the mistake of thinking I am acting as an apologist for
Saville: No way, He was a gruesome perve. BUT I WAS answering the
questions as to why nothing was done, because apart from the fiddling
with people who couldn't say no, what he was doing was - if not common
acceptable or normal - not that unusual.In those circles.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a following
of "Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a bloke expected
to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect they
felt some sort of duty to allow stars some access to their fans.
It was a long time ago!

Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years ago is
understandable. But it seems there were whispers about him even
then. Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence. But in the
years that followed there must have been people aware of rumours
who had by then been promoted to positions where they could have
advised against employing him etc. Were none of them in the 80s,
the 90s perceptive enough to be aware that times were changing,
that what might have been tolerated ten or twenty years past was no
longer, that he was a bit of a throwback, a liability at the very
least.
I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties
when a bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the limit
of what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic and did a
lot for charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to be there. Now
it transpires a lot DID have to be there and were very unwilling,
well it sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she
wasn't anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without
losing her job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the false
bonhomie and superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was into heavy
rock and blues, and that was miles away from Donny Osmond and the Bay
City Rollers.
Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found it
tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you the sack.
Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider more helpless
and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop scene around, and
made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply because he could get away
with it. Everybody knew he was doing loads of skirt, but not many
people knew that it was underage and unwilling skirt.


You mean kids and rape?



yes. If you want to put it that way.

Let's face it, there are possibilities which are more, or less, legal
and reprehensible.

overage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, legal)
overage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution, quasi
legal.)
overage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex, legal)
ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, illegal)
underage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, illegal but probably
about 20% of adults have done it at least once judging by teenage
pregnancies)
underage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
illegal.)
underage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex, legal)
ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, paedophilia,or child abuse
depending on your degree of moral outrage, illegal)

My point is the Beeb didn't check the birth certificates of every bird
that went into his dressing room.

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.

That leaves the final case where no one would have expected sex to be
consensual and consensual sex is no defence, even if the person was
overage. That's the children's homes and hospitals.

ALL I am saying is that I was aware of what went on at the beeb in a
sort of 'it was the gossip of the day' because my GF worked there.

I NEVER heard a whisper through ANY channel about what is alleged went
on in the hospitals and children's homes.

And that is why the Beeb didn't take action. I am normally the last
person to defend the Beeb, but in this case, I don't think there was
some huge cover up at top management. There might well have been a small
group of 'celebs' who used it as a cover for being more pervy than is
generally acceptable, but that's it. Gary Glitter*,. Jonathan King**,
Jimmy Saville...Michael Jackson..hell even Chuck Berry had a 14 year old
'partner' IIRC

So what I am saying is there is a grey area between underage and
overage, and a very hard to *prove* line between consent and rape.

But in the case of the children's homes and hospitals etc, that is a
lot easier to prove.

I would imagine what the enquiries will find is that
- it went on broadly as its being described
- the beeb didn't know about all of it and what they did know they
wouldn't have known was illegal, especially in the absence of complaint.
- what went on elsewhere they couldn't have known anyway unless they
were informed.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter
**http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958...e-Musical.html



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 12/10/12 21:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

I would imagine what the enquiries will find is that
- it went on broadly as its being described
- the beeb didn't know about all of it and what they did know they
wouldn't have known was illegal, especially in the absence of complaint.
- what went on elsewhere they couldn't have known anyway unless they
were informed.


I would broadly agree with all of that. But the BBC part is the least of
it. What puzzles me is how he seems to have had so much access to the
hospitals etc. The people running them, and the charities etc are the
ones who need to be investigated.


--
djc

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[Snip]

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.


to get his autograph. perfectly innocent.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[Snip]

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.


to get his autograph. perfectly innocent.

....

Indeed. I very much doubt if any ordinary member of the public,
of whatever age, ever went into any BBC dressing room in the
expectation of a shag.

michael adams

....




--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 21:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

I would imagine what the enquiries will find is that
- it went on broadly as its being described
- the beeb didn't know about all of it and what they did know they
wouldn't have known was illegal, especially in the absence of complaint.
- what went on elsewhere they couldn't have known anyway unless they
were informed.


I would broadly agree with all of that. But the BBC part is the least of
it. What puzzles me is how he seems to have had so much access to the
hospitals etc. The people running them, and the charities etc are the
ones who need to be investigated.


Yes. That is far more curious. And I have no pre judgements to make. Let
us wait and see.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a
following of "Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a
bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect
they felt some sort of duty to allow stars some access to
their fans. It was a long time ago!

Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years
ago is understandable. But it seems there were whispers about
him even then. Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence.
But in the years that followed there must have been people
aware of rumours who had by then been promoted to positions
where they could have advised against employing him etc. Were
none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive enough to be aware
that times were changing, that what might have been tolerated
ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a
throwback, a liability at the very least.
I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties
when a bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself
and indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with
it, and carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the
limit of what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic
and did a lot for charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to
be there. Now it transpires a lot DID have to be there and were
very unwilling, well it sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she
wasn't anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without
losing her job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the
false bonhomie and superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was
into heavy rock and blues, and that was miles away from Donny
Osmond and the Bay City Rollers.
Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found
it tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you
the sack. Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider
more helpless and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop
scene around, and made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply
because he could get away with it. Everybody knew he was doing
loads of skirt, but not many people knew that it was underage and
unwilling skirt.


You mean kids and rape?



yes. If you want to put it that way.

Let's face it, there are possibilities which are more, or less, legal
and reprehensible.

overage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, legal)
overage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
quasi legal.)
overage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, illegal)
underage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, illegal but probably
about 20% of adults have done it at least once judging by teenage
pregnancies)
underage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
illegal.)
underage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, paedophilia,or child abuse
depending on your degree of moral outrage, illegal)

So he had a lot of choice then:-)

The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

--
Adam

charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[Snip]

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.


to get his autograph. perfectly innocent.

Ive never heard it called that before, m'lud


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

michael adams wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[Snip]

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.

to get his autograph. perfectly innocent.

...

Indeed. I very much doubt if any ordinary member of the public,
of whatever age, ever went into any BBC dressing room in the
expectation of a shag.

Blimey. What planet do you come from?

michael adams

...



--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a
following of "Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a
bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect
they felt some sort of duty to allow stars some access to
their fans. It was a long time ago!
Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years
ago is understandable. But it seems there were whispers about
him even then. Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence.
But in the years that followed there must have been people
aware of rumours who had by then been promoted to positions
where they could have advised against employing him etc. Were
none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive enough to be aware
that times were changing, that what might have been tolerated
ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a
throwback, a liability at the very least.
I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties
when a bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself
and indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with
it, and carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the
limit of what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic
and did a lot for charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to
be there. Now it transpires a lot DID have to be there and were
very unwilling, well it sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she
wasn't anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without
losing her job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the
false bonhomie and superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was
into heavy rock and blues, and that was miles away from Donny
Osmond and the Bay City Rollers.
Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found
it tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you
the sack. Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider
more helpless and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop
scene around, and made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply
because he could get away with it. Everybody knew he was doing
loads of skirt, but not many people knew that it was underage and
unwilling skirt.

You mean kids and rape?


yes. If you want to put it that way.

Let's face it, there are possibilities which are more, or less, legal
and reprehensible.

overage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, legal)
overage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
quasi legal.)
overage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, illegal)
underage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, illegal but probably
about 20% of adults have done it at least once judging by teenage
pregnancies)
underage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
illegal.)
underage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, paedophilia,or child abuse
depending on your degree of moral outrage, illegal)

So he had a lot of choice then:-)

The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

Why? Saville wasn't gay..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

Why? Saville wasn't gay..

You know that or think that? One man at least has already come forward and
said that he was groped by Savile. I dare say more will come forward in
time.

Tim

Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

Why? Saville wasn't gay..

You know that or think that? One man at least has already come forward and
said that he was groped by Savile. I dare say more will come forward in
time.


Well there's a big bandwagion to jump on. If he was into boys I am sure
that would have been gossiped about too. Only girls , and young ones
especially.

Tim


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Indeed. I very much doubt if any ordinary member of the public,
of whatever age, ever went into any BBC dressing room in the
expectation of a shag.

For most talent, their dressing room was private. There were hospitality
areas where they could meet fans etc for autograph signing etc if needed.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[Snip]

The line between 'I went into his dressing room of my own will' and 'I
didn't want to have sex with him' is a very very hard one to prove. Why
else would they go INTO his dressing room? That's what a defence council
would say.

to get his autograph. perfectly innocent.

...

Indeed. I very much doubt if any ordinary member of the public,
of whatever age, ever went into any BBC dressing room in the
expectation of a shag.

Blimey. What planet do you come from?

The planet where ordinary people live.

No normal person would go into a BBC dressing room in the expectation
of a shag, if for no other reason that as far as they knew there would be
an ever present possibility of interruption. And so it wouldn't even
figure in their minds.

I don't actually know whether its common practice to lock BBC dressing rooms
doors from the inside, or what would be the purpose of doing so, and neither
would I imagine, do most people.

Apparently Savile had to make use of a "special curtained alcove", which
presumably
meant he couldn't lock his dressing room either.

Or perhaps you know different, and have evidence that this was also known to the
general
public ?



michael adams

....



michael adams

...



--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead
are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of
society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods
and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of
producers.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

You've surpassed your self in stupidly. He sexually assaulted children
against their wishes - even if you believe a child can give assent to
such things.

I made that exact pint, thats was the one bit we DIDN'T know.and te ONLY
thing that is surprising.

He could have had consensual sex with half the country if they were of
legal age and there would have been no outcry.


Gay men have consensual sex with other adult gay men. Those who pray on
children are pederasts - nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.


You have totally missed the point. I was merely using that as an example
of something that would have been utterly taboo to be overt about in
the 60's (it was as illegal - probably more illegal - than screwing
jailbait is today) and is now totally acceptable. Turing nearly went to
jail for being tossed off by another bloke.

Complete nonsense. Homosexuality was accepted in the entertainment
industry long before it became legal. Turing was jailed for doing
something which is still illegal today.


ALL I am saying if you can drop your prejudices and see it, is that what
is acceptable today is not what was acceptable in the 60's. We are
totally tolerant of 'perversions' except those involving underage
children despite the fact that the age of consent goes as low as 13 in
some cultures.

It shows your true colours calling homosexuality a perversion. But try to
justify having sex with children.

So as I say, in the permissive 60's Jimmy wasn't doing anything wrong
EXCEPT to unwilling juveniles who had no chance to refuse.

So it would have been ok if they agreed? Good God.

And that was NOT a matter of wide knowledge - no way. As I said we all
knew he was a randy perve, but so were many people then. You would be
surprised how many bastions of the establishment were visiting miss
whiplash et al,. or getting access to distinctly younger than legal
crumpet. Or boys.

I don't give a stuff if the Queen herself likes being whipped. That is her
business. What is totally unacceptable is using a position of power to
inflict yourself on unwilling people - and even more so when they're
children.

The odd thing is, that in a way people were less surprised then, than
they are now.

I think life was a bit more realistic and earthy then, without so many
sheltered suburban illusions.

You make the mistake of thinking I am acting as an apologist for
Saville: No way, He was a gruesome perve. BUT I WAS answering the
questions as to why nothing was done, because apart from the fiddling
with people who couldn't say no, what he was doing was - if not common
acceptable or normal - not that unusual.In those circles.

Kiddy fiddling wasn't acceptable then or now. By the vast majority of the
population.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself and
indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with it, and
carried on.
Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.
You've surpassed your self in stupidly. He sexually assaulted children
against their wishes - even if you believe a child can give assent to
such things.

I made that exact pint, thats was the one bit we DIDN'T know.and te ONLY
thing that is surprising.

He could have had consensual sex with half the country if they were of
legal age and there would have been no outcry.


Gay men have consensual sex with other adult gay men. Those who pray on
children are pederasts - nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.


You have totally missed the point. I was merely using that as an example
of something that would have been utterly taboo to be overt about in
the 60's (it was as illegal - probably more illegal - than screwing
jailbait is today) and is now totally acceptable. Turing nearly went to
jail for being tossed off by another bloke.

Complete nonsense. Homosexuality was accepted in the entertainment
industry long before it became legal. Turing was jailed for doing
something which is still illegal today.


Oh really? So you were there then?

IIRC he wasn't jailed at all. - he took a chemical castration instead.

"What the court offered Turing was a choice: a prison sentence, or a
€œtreatment€� for his homosexuality, organo-therapy, which was in effect a
form of chemical castration. €œIt is supposed to reduce sexual urge
whilst it goes on, but one is supposed to return to normal when it is
over,€� Turing wrote in a letter to a friend on April 17. €œI hope theyre
right.€� The effects of the organo-therapy were not as straightforward as
Turing hoped. He grew breasts as a result of the oestrogen, suffered
bouts of depression, and started to see a therapist."


ALL I am saying if you can drop your prejudices and see it, is that what
is acceptable today is not what was acceptable in the 60's. We are
totally tolerant of 'perversions' except those involving underage
children despite the fact that the age of consent goes as low as 13 in
some cultures.

It shows your true colours calling homosexuality a perversion. But try to
justify having sex with children.

I didn't call it a perversion. I called it a 'perversion' because in
those days that is what it was called. I put it in inverted commas
because I don't consider it that and nor is it seen that way now.


You are showing YOUR true colours, trying to raise straw men.




So as I say, in the permissive 60's Jimmy wasn't doing anything wrong
EXCEPT to unwilling juveniles who had no chance to refuse.

So it would have been ok if they agreed? Good God.

Sheesh you are a right moralising little prick arent you.

I don't know what 'all right' means. Girls like to shag too, you know.
Or perhaps you don't. Even 15 year olds. I have no idea whether its
right or wrong to oblige them, and I am hardly likely to face that
dilemma at my age, but I am certainly old enough not to pronounce moral
judgement on them for doing it.

Some would have definitely considered it something to brag about.


And that was NOT a matter of wide knowledge - no way. As I said we all
knew he was a randy perve, but so were many people then. You would be
surprised how many bastions of the establishment were visiting miss
whiplash et al,. or getting access to distinctly younger than legal
crumpet. Or boys.

I don't give a stuff if the Queen herself likes being whipped. That is her
business. What is totally unacceptable is using a position of power to
inflict yourself on unwilling people - and even more so when they're
children.


Well quite, and I never said it wasn't. So I am not sure why you are in
a moralising tizz about this.
I said it twice and I'll repeat it: Its very hard to disprove consent in
the BBC context, and the under age thing is a technical offence. 10
seconds to midnight on her 16th birthday its illegal and 10 seconds
later its legal. Doesn't that strike you as weird? I accept that the
law has to draw a line, but its terribly arbitrary and one hopes judges
take a view on the individual case.


The odd thing is, that in a way people were less surprised then, than
they are now.

I think life was a bit more realistic and earthy then, without so many
sheltered suburban illusions.

You make the mistake of thinking I am acting as an apologist for
Saville: No way, He was a gruesome perve. BUT I WAS answering the
questions as to why nothing was done, because apart from the fiddling
with people who couldn't say no, what he was doing was - if not common
acceptable or normal - not that unusual.In those circles.

Kiddy fiddling wasn't acceptable then or now. By the vast majority of the
population.

When is a kiddy a young woman? that's one point. How many girls, then or
now, are virgins on their 16th birthday?

There is as far as I know no evidence that he assaulted pre-pubescent
girls. Certainly my GF was no virgin when he propositioned her, and not
under age.

I am, less incensed by the underage than by the lack of consent
especially in girls who were clearly vulnerable and in no position to
say no. That upsets me far more - less wanting to do jailbait, more
doing it to jailbait that didn't want it. That's just lack of class.

So the kiddy bit? not so bothered. The fiddling - which implies using
authority to make something not desired happen, that I don't forgive..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

You have totally missed the point. I was merely using that as an example
of something that would have been utterly taboo to be overt about in
the 60's (it was as illegal - probably more illegal - than screwing
jailbait is today) and is now totally acceptable. Turing nearly went to
jail for being tossed off by another bloke.

Complete nonsense. Homosexuality was accepted in the entertainment
industry long before it became legal. Turing was jailed for doing
something which is still illegal today.

What was that? Wikipedia has him being done for gross indecency, but the
act under which he was charged has been repealed, and I'm struggling to
think of the actions he might have done which are still illegal.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing
underage girls not underage boys.
Why? Saville wasn't gay..
You know that or think that? One man at least has already come forward and
said that he was groped by Savile. I dare say more will come forward in
time.

Well there's a big bandwagion to jump on. If he was into boys I am sure
that would have been gossiped about too. Only girls , and young ones especially.

Tim


Another "bandwagon jumper".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-19932105

Tim

In message
849564657371774704.948962timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk@reader80.
eternal-september.org, Tim+
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

Why? Saville wasn't gay..

You know that or think that? One man at least has already come forward and
said that he was groped by Savile. I dare say more will come forward in
time.

He's a man now - but I believe has had 'gender realignment'. Presumably
he was once considered (and behaved) female.
--
Ian

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Complete nonsense. Homosexuality was accepted in the entertainment
industry long before it became legal. Turing was jailed for doing
something which is still illegal today.


Oh really? So you were there then?

IIRC he wasn't jailed at all. - he took a chemical castration instead.

Trying to keep things simple.

"What the court offered Turing was a choice: a prison sentence, or a
”treatment• for his homosexuality, organo-therapy, which was in effect a
form of chemical castration. ”It is supposed to reduce sexual urge
whilst it goes on, but one is supposed to return to normal when it is
over,• Turing wrote in a letter to a friend on April 17. ”I hope they‘re
right.• The effects of the organo-therapy were not as straightforward as
Turing hoped. He grew breasts as a result of the oestrogen, suffered
bouts of depression, and started to see a therapist."

Complete red herring. The facts are the offence he committed then is still
illegal. And likely still has the option of a prison sentence.


ALL I am saying if you can drop your prejudices and see it, is that
what is acceptable today is not what was acceptable in the 60's. We
are totally tolerant of 'perversions' except those involving
underage children despite the fact that the age of consent goes as
low as 13 in some cultures.

It shows your true colours calling homosexuality a perversion. But try
to justify having sex with children.

I didn't call it a perversion. I called it a 'perversion' because in
those days that is what it was called. I put it in inverted commas
because I don't consider it that and nor is it seen that way now.

Plenty still call it that now. Plenty still consider it so now too.

You are showing YOUR true colours, trying to raise straw men.

Not at all - the whole tone of your post shows your true colours.

So as I say, in the permissive 60's Jimmy wasn't doing anything wrong
EXCEPT to unwilling juveniles who had no chance to refuse.

So it would have been ok if they agreed? Good God.

Sheesh you are a right moralising little prick arent you.

I don't know what 'all right' means. Girls like to shag too, you know.
Or perhaps you don't. Even 15 year olds. I have no idea whether its
right or wrong to oblige them, and I am hardly likely to face that
dilemma at my age, but I am certainly old enough not to pronounce moral
judgement on them for doing it.

See what I mean about true colours? Standard defence of any perve - 'they
were begging for it'

Some would have definitely considered it something to brag about.

I've worked (on a volunteer basis) with enough people who have been
sexually assulated to know the scars it can leave. For some, all their
lives.

I'd suggest you do the same before talking such ****e.

It is a totally different thing a young girl - either above or near the
age of consent - having consensual sex with her boyfriend, than being
forced into it by a powerful stranger.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.